Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/574

NAT. FBATHEE DUSTEB 00. V. HIBBABD. 559 �William H. Curwin, Charles J. Sauter, and William W^ Clark, as assignees of George W. Hibbard, for an "improvement in feather dusters," and charges that George W. Hibbard is the husband of the defendant Susan M. Hibbard, and that after the said George had, made the invention described in the letters patent No. 154,985, and before the issue of his patent, he sold and assigned his invention,; and his right to a patent thereto, to the parties named therein, to-wit, Curwin, Sauter, and Clark, and the patent was duly issued to them as assignees of George W. Hibbard; and that after said George W. had made the invention described in his patent, and sold the same, as stated, he and the said Susan M., his mie, colluded together to obtain the letters patent which were issued to said Susan upon tho pretext and false assumption that said Suean was the real inventer of the device covered by the first-issued letters patent. And the bill prays that the patent so issued to said Susan M., in violation of the exclusive rights of the complainants in the invention therein de- scribed, may be cancelled and set aside, �The peculiar feature which characterizes both these patents is a feather duster made of turkey feathers, or the feathers of our ordi- nary domestic fowls adapted to such purpose, made pliable by remov- ing the pithy part or body frpm the stem of the feathers, bo as to adapt the feathers more perfectly to such use, when combined with the other elements to form a duster or brush. , i �The proof in this case shows conclusively that Mrs. Susan M. Hibbard knew of the fact that her husband had applied for a patent upon this device ; knew, also, that he was poor and unable to pay the expense of obtaining a patent, and that he made thc bargain with Curwin and Sauter to advance the expanses and^ obtain the patent on condition that they should become half-owuers thereof. She also knew of the negotiations between her husband and Clark for the sale of the other half of the patent, and made no objection to the negoti' ation, and knew that her husband was to receive what was considered very liberal pay for the remaining half of the patent, and the only objection she ever made to the negotiation was that she insisted that the purchase money to be paid by Clark should be given to her — not because she was the inventer, or had anything to do with the inven- tion of the duster to be covered by the patent, but because her hus- band, being an improvident man, would squander the money which she wished to use in the purchase of a home for the family. During all the negotiations between her husband and Curwin and Sauter, and her husband and Clark, she nevcr claimed or pretended, or by ��� �